End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream -Gregory Greene, 2004 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film argues that oil and natural gas depletion will make it impossible for us to continue running the suburbs the way we've been running them for the past 60 years - not only will it become more difficult for us to fuel our cars, but the other areas in which we depend on oil will make suburbia unsustainable as well - heating flung-out and dispersed suburban homes, paving and maintaining the roads, and perhaps even powering them when the natural gas that we're becoming dependent on for new electricity generation grows scarce as well.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
Simmons and the other interviewees assert that a sort of denialism exists in our political structure - our policymakers are unable to acknowledge and plan for the energy problems we face and even the signs of us passing our energy thresholds - such as the 2003 blackout which was caused by a sudden, overwhelming demand for electricity that surpassed a stagnant supply - are blamed on mundane and unrelated problems (such as the claim that some brush on the powerlines was responsible for knocking out power to the entire Northeastern US in 2003).
Legal?
Peter Calthorpe stressed that - despite the assumption of suburbanites that it is the freest, most efficient way to live - the suburban environment was highly subsidized by the government from the very beginning. Everything from the highways to the sewer/water/gas/electricity networks to the manner in which the homes were built and financed for the middle class masses was subsidized by a set of governmental regulatory strategies (investment in old urban centers was specifically curtailed) and direct transfers of wealth from the city to the countryside were made. As Kunstler likes to say, "our cities were decanted into the countryside." The governmental regulations (zoning et al) and subsidies will prove to be unsustainable and unaffordable.
Economic?
Simmons stresses that modern economic development is built on the expectation of continuous expected growth - modern economic growth will simply not be possible in an era of fuel scarcity.
Technological?
The film introduces us to the nature of Hubbert's Peak in oil extraction and discusses that the public is still not aware of how oil depletion works. Many assume that the argument is that we will "run out of oil" when in fact that will not really happen - rather it is a process of gradual depletion - as stocks run low demand will begin to continuously outstrip supply.
Media and informational?
The public is bombarded with the promotion of false solutions to the oil problem by media and industry - there are claims that hydrogen fuel cells will be the future. The interviewees point out that hydrogen is not actually an energy source - it is an energy storage medium that requires an energy input itself. It also takes more energy to produce hydrogen than we get from utilizing the hydrogen as a fuel itself. Yet the public and media delusion over hydrogen continues.
Organizational?
Kunstler argues that our society's reliance on oil has led to the development of massive, hypercomplex social institutions that will need to be downscaled and relocalized in the future - everything from industry to commerce to agriculture to transport to education to entertainment, etc, will need to be downscaled.
Educational?
Calthorpe shows us that the lessons the New Urbanists picked up from our urban history - how to build locally-scalable, walkable communities - are becoming increasingly popular not just among the general public but among developers as well. Kunstler points out that developers are unfortunately still quite invested in the suburban method of residential construction because they understand the process so well and have invested so many of their business strategies into the process that they are resistant to change.
Behavioral?
The film shows us that many suburbanites have developed an absurd premise over the years that they "deserve" suburbia and that any attempt to reform it is an attack on their freedom. Kunstler argues that we will need to change our behaviors whether we like suburbia or not - we do not have the luxury to argue if this lifestyle is "deserved" or not because we will not be able to maintain it under any scenario anyway.
Cultural?
The film includes an argument by Kunstler that so many people have become used to the suburban way of living and consider it so normal and expected that even as oil becomes scarce and the lifestyle becomes increasingly unsustainable and uneconomical there will still be huge efforts to "rescue" and maintain suburbia for as long as possible because the alternative way of living - in walkable communities scaled around agriculture and around local resources - will be unfathomable to most Americans.
Ecological?
Agribusiness has destroyed our soils to the point that they now serve as sponges that require petrochemical inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) to produce crops. More worrisome however, is that agribusiness has helped destroy locally-scaled networks of resource interdependency and commerce/trade. Fortunately oil scarcity will force globalization to be reversed - the incredible environmental damage that globalized industry has wreaked on the planet will not be as easy to commit in the future.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The discussion over the "Great American Streetcar Scandal" was interesting. While I think that the decline of streetcars in the US was more the result of other phenomena - people abandoning streetcars for automobiles in droves (declining ridership), streetcar companies deferring maintenance and shifting investments away from infrastructural improvement - the discussion shows us that large corporations can easily engage in unethical collusion to illegally stamp out their competition.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I take issue only with a small point that Simmons made - as traditional economic development and transport falls into trouble he implied that some people living in suburbia can manage the crisis by "working from home." I think that the economic problems we will face will be so pervasive that the businesses that depend on telecommuting - management, media, services, sales, and all the other jobs that can rely on telecommuting - will simply not exist in the future. Telecommuting simply won't be an option because the means of employment that we are used to today will simply not be around (and won't be necessary) in an era of oil depletion - we will be more dependent on agriculture and local manufacturing and commerce than on the "service" economy. There will be no work for people to "telecommute" to.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
It would be worth exploring how civilizations responded to resource problems in the past - we might be able to take lessons from their responses (such as how the preindustrial Japanese civilization adapted to an ever-decreasing amount of resources on their island). Obviously we didn't learn anything from the 1970s oil crises.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film seems to be directed to the general American public, a public that is completely unaware of the vast sustainability problems associated with suburbia. The fact that the film began with a lengthy discussion on how postwar suburbia was a process fueled by government subsidy was probably to dispel the suburban delusion that it was a natural process determined by the free markets. I don't think the film will change the attitudes of most suburban residents - they may grudgingly accept some of the points and become more anxious over their predicament but they will probably devote even more of their attention to "rescue remedies" and delusions like hydrogen power or telecommuting. They will resist making changes until it is too late.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Kunstler urges us to work as hard as possible to reduce our automobile dependency. Simmons asks us to be more aware of our energy consumption and begin planning for what we might do if energy is no longer so cheap and abundant. Another interviewee tells us to stop waiting around for the federal government to provide renewable energy for us and to begin to make our own arrangements in providing it. Even though renewable energy will not allow us to run modern civilization the way we've been used to running it, it will still be a useful on a small scale in the future. No government rescue remedy over renewable energy will emerge - it is up to locals to make their own arrangements to provide it for themselves.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
The different interviewees all acknowledge that oil depletion will make the suburban way of life unsustainable but their predictions for how we will respond vary. For example, Calthorpe thinks we will engage in an extensive retrofitting of suburbia to transform it into walkable communities while Kunstler thinks we won't have the resources to do that and that we will instead be forced to abandon many suburbs (they will be the "slums of the future").
Is it overly “balanced”?
No, it aggressively asserts that oil depletion will make suburban civilization unsustainable.
Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
Yes, especially in the discussion on Peak Oil. The interviewees stress that our problem is not about "running out of oil" but rather about finding ourselves in the midst of a perpetual and gradual decline in supply. The interviewees showed us that oil depletion follows a bell curve and that there are no exceptions.
Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
Some viewers might find the supposed predictions of "doom and gloom" rather preachy and unrealistically prophetic, especially if they have invested so much of their identity into the suburban way of living that they can't imagine ever having to change.
Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
Yes, there were two photos of a typical suburban strip that were retrofitted into walkable communities that were quite powerful. These two images show us that even the worst types of suburban environments can be densified and infilled to become walkable communities, even though it is doubtful that we'll have the capital to engage in this type of retrofitting on a large scale.
End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream - Gregory Greene, 2004
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film argues that oil and natural gas depletion will make it impossible for us to continue running the suburbs the way we've been running them for the past 60 years - not only will it become more difficult for us to fuel our cars, but the other areas in which we depend on oil will make suburbia unsustainable as well - heating flung-out and dispersed suburban homes, paving and maintaining the roads, and perhaps even powering them when the natural gas that we're becoming dependent on for new electricity generation grows scarce as well.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The discussion over the "Great American Streetcar Scandal" was interesting. While I think that the decline of streetcars in the US was more the result of other phenomena - people abandoning streetcars for automobiles in droves (declining ridership), streetcar companies deferring maintenance and shifting investments away from infrastructural improvement - the discussion shows us that large corporations can easily engage in unethical collusion to illegally stamp out their competition.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I take issue only with a small point that Simmons made - as traditional economic development and transport falls into trouble he implied that some people living in suburbia can manage the crisis by "working from home." I think that the economic problems we will face will be so pervasive that the businesses that depend on telecommuting - management, media, services, sales, and all the other jobs that can rely on telecommuting - will simply not exist in the future. Telecommuting simply won't be an option because the means of employment that we are used to today will simply not be around (and won't be necessary) in an era of oil depletion - we will be more dependent on agriculture and local manufacturing and commerce than on the "service" economy. There will be no work for people to "telecommute" to.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
It would be worth exploring how civilizations responded to resource problems in the past - we might be able to take lessons from their responses (such as how the preindustrial Japanese civilization adapted to an ever-decreasing amount of resources on their island). Obviously we didn't learn anything from the 1970s oil crises.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film seems to be directed to the general American public, a public that is completely unaware of the vast sustainability problems associated with suburbia. The fact that the film began with a lengthy discussion on how postwar suburbia was a process fueled by government subsidy was probably to dispel the suburban delusion that it was a natural process determined by the free markets. I don't think the film will change the attitudes of most suburban residents - they may grudgingly accept some of the points and become more anxious over their predicament but they will probably devote even more of their attention to "rescue remedies" and delusions like hydrogen power or telecommuting. They will resist making changes until it is too late.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Kunstler urges us to work as hard as possible to reduce our automobile dependency. Simmons asks us to be more aware of our energy consumption and begin planning for what we might do if energy is no longer so cheap and abundant. Another interviewee tells us to stop waiting around for the federal government to provide renewable energy for us and to begin to make our own arrangements in providing it. Even though renewable energy will not allow us to run modern civilization the way we've been used to running it, it will still be a useful on a small scale in the future. No government rescue remedy over renewable energy will emerge - it is up to locals to make their own arrangements to provide it for themselves.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
- The different interviewees all acknowledge that oil depletion will make the suburban way of life unsustainable but their predictions for how we will respond vary. For example, Calthorpe thinks we will engage in an extensive retrofitting of suburbia to transform it into walkable communities while Kunstler thinks we won't have the resources to do that and that we will instead be forced to abandon many suburbs (they will be the "slums of the future").
- Is it overly “balanced”?
- No, it aggressively asserts that oil depletion will make suburban civilization unsustainable.
- Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
- Yes, especially in the discussion on Peak Oil. The interviewees stress that our problem is not about "running out of oil" but rather about finding ourselves in the midst of a perpetual and gradual decline in supply. The interviewees showed us that oil depletion follows a bell curve and that there are no exceptions.
- Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
- Some viewers might find the supposed predictions of "doom and gloom" rather preachy and unrealistically prophetic, especially if they have invested so much of their identity into the suburban way of living that they can't imagine ever having to change.
- Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
- Yes, there were two photos of a typical suburban strip that were retrofitted into walkable communities that were quite powerful. These two images show us that even the worst types of suburban environments can be densified and infilled to become walkable communities, even though it is doubtful that we'll have the capital to engage in this type of retrofitting on a large scale.
.< Back to my portfolio